Maybe it's a matter of opinion, and a reflection of my own dealings with certain industry people (who I've been open that I've experienced on my own as attacking the person who says something rather than the content of what the person says.)
But for a few years, the only comment threads I've seen under Times reviews where comments almost en masse have attacked reviewer's qualifications to do their job (rather than just their opinions of the show) has been Encores. And this past year, that Smokey Joe strangeness which ended up in People Magazine, and both Be More Chill threads. There have been two or three individual commenters in many other threads, like some people wondering if a preference against jukebox shows should be considered in who reviews, but nothing that feels like this. if it's happening more often, then tell me and say where.
But because I'm having a Human rights issue with a specific producing group that unaccountably besmirches character of a victim, suggesting the victim deserved it rather than say why they did what they did, I've been searching and this does seem to be a technique.
It's noteworthy. No one gathered in the comments under "High Button Shoes" to question credentials. I have no idea what it means, but it's still noteworthy when anything is different than it has been for years.
Theater really needs reviewers to survive in a way that movies and TV probably do not. Movies and TV might be Ok, since they are so easy to get to, and there's no big whoop if the first half hour turns you off and you turn it off. Pop music, maybe - but without music critics, no one would know what to give Grammys to, because no one really know what pop music is good for the art except the people who really study it.
The whole purpose of Encores! is to revisit shows that - for whatever reason - have not been seen for perhaps decades. Is that such an impossible concept to grasp? If I want to see a show adapted to modern sensibilities (as if it were possible to keep abreast of those ever-changing ideas) I will go see Broadway's latest take on "Kiss Me, Kate," "Oklahoma" or, perhaps worst of all, the disaster that was the "sensitizing" of the once-upon-a-time-delightful "Flower Drum Song a while back." Is it impossible for Jesse Green (or any of the NYT critics) to simply go see a show and take it for what it is? Or for what it was? Of course the shows are dated. Wasn't that inherent in their being called "revival"s?
And by the way, after reading this review I was left to wonder if there had been a cast on stage to perform the show. No mention of anyone but Sara Mearns - was this a one-woman show?
9
@GMG, re "The whole purpose of Encores! is to revisit shows that - for whatever reason - have not been seen for perhaps decades. Is that such an impossible concept to grasp?"
It's easy to grasp, but that really was going away already after the first season as the purpose - by the second season it was doing "Pal Joey" and by 1997 (the year after "Chicago") two of the three were "Promises Promises" and "Boys from Syracuse" done wonderfully, though the third, the probably really unrevivable "Sweet Adeline" had one of the most thrilling anythings I've ever seen live anywhere when the City Center stage turned into musical rapture with "Some Girl is On Your Mind." But by "Hair" and "Bye Bye Birdie" and "Pajama Game"... Even "Big River" (2017) had had a stunning revival in the 21st century already.
Something like "The New Yorkers," though, preserving a Cole Porter score that would otherwise be lost (and is being recorded real soon, so that will remain) has great value for history. And that sounds like a permanent addition to the arts. I know reviews did vary - but its historical value, and its scholarship value, as a previously missing-to-us piece in Porter's careerand songbook, likely wouldn't be debated.
1
@GMG, re "The whole purpose of Encores! is to revisit shows that - for whatever reason - have not been seen for perhaps decades. Is that such an impossible concept to grasp?"
It's easy to grasp, but that really was going away already after the first season as the purpose - by the second season it was doing "Pal Joey" and by 1997 (the year after "Chicago") two of the three were "Promises Promises" and "Boys from Syracuse" done wonderfully, though the third, the probably really unrevivable "Sweet Adeline" had one of the most thrilling anythings I've ever seen live anywhere when the City Center stage turned into musical rapture with "Some Girl is On Your Mind." But by "Hair" and "Bye Bye Birdie" and "Pajama Game." Even "Big River" (2017) had had a stunning revival in the 21st century already.
PS a very funny writer who went by "Royboy" had imagined, when rumors had swirled that a great diva's agent had asked for a perk or two that hadn't existed for over 20 years, some of the various things that might have been on the list.
If it's OK, a light musical take on a star's agent asking for what's been gone for decades. (in salute to thinking Encores is what it was in 1994 and should still be judged that way) - "Elaine's Contract Negotiation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgev_fewvlQ
Saw the show today. A delight. A wonderful antique from 1938--with all the gold-dust still on its wings. And just to hear those original orchestrations soar with the title song and "Spring is Here" brought tears to my eyes. Funny, farcical, and spirited: a delicious window into the past.
3
It's better than he says. The choreography is playful and spirited, creates drama where it should, conveys the music when it should.
Sara is terrific. The rest of the cast is terrific.
Encores shows are not meant to be fully realized productions. They're put together with relatively few resources and certainly with far less time than would taken with a full-scale production.
It's a stinker of a review. Don't pay any attention to it.
9
@GraffitiGrammarian, regarding "with relatively few resources and certainly with far less time"
These are choices they make, as some have looked sumptuous and some don't; just like the choice to almost always adapt the book, rather than do it as written. Regarding "far less time" - would anyone they hope and pay complain about three rehearsal weeks rather than two? That's a choice also.
Wondering whether the evolution of referring to scripts at Encores was a choice the actors made, as people recall the fun nods to the scripts in hand, like in "Chicago" at Encores, IIRC Velma showily handing off the script to the cinductor, and in "Carnival" (was it at all the performances that the hand-puppets were referring to the scripts since I remember that going over big, but others don't recall that).
The reviewer’s show-off (teacher, teacher give me more homework; look how smart I am) style, misses the mark. Encores! performances do so much with so little and they never fail to delight.
10
Jesses Green's review of this 'monument' musical, an old war horse of Broadway Musical Theater, is, to say the least , obnoxious. He skewers an obviously dated book that has gone under a "a thorough feminist scouring " by modern day playwrights and yet his 21st Century vision still finds room to scold a brilliant lyricist long gone for his outmoded views on man/woman relationships. Lorenz Hart may not have been the ideal purveyor of heterosexual romance though his talent was as obvious as his sexuality was hidden, at least to the general public, but his love songs have a wistful quality that stand the test of time, no matter what one's sexual preference.
These Encore shows give theater mavens a chance to see and hear works that most likely would never see the light of day in expensive Broadway stagings. I find it incredibly annoying for someone who professes to be an educated theater critic to dismiss an old musical such as this because it does not live up to our PC, #metoo times. The recent trend of altering older musicals to assuage the tender feelings of coddled, modern day audiences is an idiotic form of censorship. The past wasn't always pretty, to be sure, but neither is the present. Presenting plays and musicals as originally written, warts and all, keeps the legacy of theater history alive. See and discuss later.
19
@mikeo26, "Presenting plays and musicals as originally written, warts and all, keeps the legacy of theater history alive. "
But Encores almost always does an adaptation of the book, which is credited, not the book as originally written, whether to sharpen, or to come in under 2:30, or any reason.
Once a person working "now" actually does the adapting work, and gets credit, or even pay, for it, the adapter is making it work for "now," or not work for "now," and that's what's being there to entertain us or be discussed. If the adapter of some show in going from 2:55 to 2:30 creates plot holes that the book didn't have at 2:55, then the art of adapting is at issue, and don't blame the original as written for that. If the adapter updates jokes in some show, and the new stuff doesn't work, again the art of adapting is at issue, etc. If the adapters chosen worked for weeks to make the show work for 2019's sensitivity, how well the result turned out is the work of the 2019 artists, and again the art of adapting is at issue, etc. (I feel like I'm about to burst into "Da-ye-nu" - or Enough already - from the Passover seder, so I hope that's enough - just three examples, but the adaptation could have any purpose).
And of course: If, as with "Chicago" at Encores and several others, the adapter scores a real accomplishment, then praise and reward the art of the adapter, even while seeing the qualities that were enhanced were there waiting in the original book.
@mikeo26
Perfectly stated. This is perhaps the most strained of all the strained reviews that want to scold rather than assess. Thanks
7
I disliked the slime attempt against Woody Allen, who has never been convicted of any crimes and remains a victim of obvious malice and stupid gossip.
Having said that, this reviewer also seems ignorant of the 1942 film version of I MARRIED AN ANGEL, which basically failed because it was too modern, risque, and sexy for its time ... in 1942. The film starred Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy and featured, among its delights, a jive dance number with MacDonald and Binnie Barnes (as Peggy).
As to revivals of plays and musicals and watching old films. if you can't watch them in the context of their times, then don't watch them at all. And now that I think it it, I guess that goes for books, too!
19
Jesse, this review is most unfair. Why on earth dip into the play's historical underpinnings and mention irrelevant contemporary celebrities while ignoring what's actually in front of the audience?
The cast, whom you barely acknowledge, was brilliant. Mark Evans, in the central role as Count Palaffi, acts, sings and dances stylishly and effortlessly. Sara Mearns, as the eponymous Angel, is simultaneously funny and ethereal as she appears to float through the show. Hayley Podschun, Nikki M. James and Phillip Attmore are all powerhouse performers.
The costumes perfectly captured the period, just as the minimal sets set just the right tone (as these Encores! sets always do). Bergasse's choreography was excellent, comprising tap, jitterbug, classical ballet and "modern" dance during the surrealist ballet segment.
The best Encores! show ever? No. But a delightful evening spent getting to know a long-buried show, and that's reason enough to not miss it.
20
@Neil Hear, hear! Thank you, sir, for noting all the glorious highlights of this sparkling production. We go to the Encores! to be entertained, knowing full well that these shows from the past reflect outdated mores that are still evolving. Thank you for giving this show its due.
14
@Andrea Mosbacher, this needs to be said as often as the moderators are ok: Encores is not people pitching in and serving soup for the needy, homes for the homeless. Everyone noted below at City Center is working for as much as they would make for the same jobs on Broadway, and without the uncertainty of Broadway about whether their show is a hit or a flop; but the Congress believed in the arts as worthy and allows them to receive tax-deductible donations. The general rule that it's for lesser-heard shows was gong gone by Hair in 2001, Pajama Game in 2002, then Bye Bye Birdie, Follies, and it really was let's do great renditions of three musicals a year that we'd really like to do. it was just brilliantly talented people putting on three shows a year, everyone at Encores earning as much as they would on Broadway, charging pretty much the Broadway top price up to the grand tier, but getting benefits of non-profit donations.
I'm a Harvard law grad from 1983 (admittedly with a disability), and never made half in a year of what the assistant electrician makes. From Feb.2019 post: this is 2016 from the public-information form 990: assistant electrician 293,000, marketing VP 221,000, head carpenter 306,000, sound engineer 276,000, development VP who raises donations 256,000, head stagehand 260,000, the City Center pres/CEO 567,000 (397,000 plus deferred comp 170,000),
The Encores artistic directors (B'way series and off-B'way series) got 150,000 each.
I am sorry but Encores owes us better than this. A dreadful night at the theater. A show with a less than third-rate score and book has no place on that stage.
2
The problem with Jesse Green's review (and he is certainly entitled to his opinions) is that while he correctly prefaces most of it with the admission that he is evaluating the piece in a historical context, he allows this analysis to dominate his review. This is really more of a treatise on the work itself and not at all a performance review. There are two things that should be talked about: the piece itself (and possibly the wisdom of presenting it), and, more importantly (in my judgment) the performances. He reviews the choreography and orchestra, but says virtually nothing about the individual actors beyond Ms. Mearns's dancing. (I thought Hayley Podshun's performance was worth the price of admission.) Iwish he would pontificate less and review more - save the academic pieces for Sunday's Arts & Leisure section (if he can get the space).
28
Jesse Green wrote, “You can faintly feel the risqué frisson a line like that may have aroused in the audience at the Shubert Theater in 1938. But mostly you wince, as you also do when an old man remembers how lovely Peggy was when they started dating: ‘You were 18 — I hope.’ (She was 15.)”
First of all, he’s not supposed to be an old man. In the original production, the role was played by Walter Slezak, who was 36. This was six years after he played the juvenile lead in Music in the Air. Peggy was played by Vivienne Segal, who was 41. I interpret Peggy’s reply as being about making herself younger than she actually is.
Encores! has cast Tom Robbins in the Slezak role. He is 60, but he also has the firmest grasp of how to play this material. But, yes, it is odd to cast him opposite Nikki M. James, who is 37.
4
@Alan Gomberg
There was a comments discussion recently on shows being revised for revivals, and what's believed to be Hart's very last song was an addition to the score of "Connecticut Yankee" for its revival (which came after "Pal Joey") which found Hart's abilities at their very peak, "To Keep My Love Alive," It could be because he wrote it specifically for Vivienne Segal, who as Alan Gomberg mentioned, played that character in that exchange in "I Married An Angel." In the right hands, Hart's last song (or at least one of his very last) can come through as an ultimate "take no prisoners" female empowerment number.
(Interesting to recall that Brooks Atkinson raved for "I Married an Angel," but seemed disgusted by "Pal Joey" the first time around, for all the ability it showed. I may even one day in the Theater Geeks' Home claim to have been there at the openings; the teenager who heard me talking to her mom about the original 'Dreamgirls" tryout in Boston at the "Moulin Rouge" stage door asked sincerely if I had seen the original "Oklahoma" tryout in Boston. I was tempted to joke no, but I caught the tryout in New Haven, but her mom assured her and me I didn't seem to be THAT old.)
3
Yeah, but if he doesn’t make that point, he can’t use the oh-so-clever gratuitous slam against Woody Allen.
Maybe if the reviewer had spent less time thinking about Confederate monuments, Woody Allen, and Michael Jackson, he would have been swept away (as the audience was) by the sheer magic of the singing, dancing, and winsome acting in this hugely entertaining show. Kudos to Joshua Bergasse and the entire cast and crew. You took lemons and made a joyous lemonade!
24
@Andrea Mosbacher
Brava to you! And where is Ben Brantley and his passionate and objective reviews? Mention of Woody Allen, not only has nothing to do with this beautiful performance, but also peddles in gossip and ignores the evidence. A sincere belief that all human beings be treated respectfully is not synonymous with an ever increasing questionable agenda that intrudes into every aspect of life, as Jesse Green has done here.
9
@Sidney Goldberg, re "Mention of Woody Allen" - But the decision to leave in what is described as
an old man remembers how lovely Peggy was when they started dating: “You were 18 — I hope.” (She was 15.)
was made by these artists and producers as a group in the past few months, in late 2018 and 2019, and that it stayed in through the whole rehearsal process is fair game, isn't it? It would seem fair to discuss that decision if the exchange stayed in even before #MeToo, and informs the question of what doing a successful #MeToo rewrite entails. (I think there's a difference between Woody Allen and Michael Jackson in that no one has alleged anything illegal in Woody Allens's relationship with his wife.)
1
@Sidney Goldberg, "where is Ben Brantley "
I hear he might be at a live performance of all the fan mail he got from the commenters under the "Be More Chill" review. With the half-hour talkback, it should run 30 minutes.
I loved "The Cher Show" and I held back and didn't make wisecracks like they should sing "Just Like Jesse Green" to Cher's "Just Like Jesse James" (oh, wait)